Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 12 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010126942025
2025:GAU-AS:10679
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/649/2025
MD SAIFUDDIN AHMED
S/O AMIR ALI
R/O NO. 2 DOBOK, P.O. DOBOK
P.S. RANGIA,
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM,
PIN-781354.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR P DOLEY,MR H
AGARWAL,MR. R SALOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : OTC/0/0
MD SAIFUDDIN AHMED
KAMRUP
ASSAM
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/4
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY PP
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : HARSHIT AGARWAL
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 12.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. R Saloi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Ms. S.H Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor is present.
3. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been
filed praying for condonation of delay of 1949 days in preferring the connected
Criminal Revision Petition.
4. Mr. R Saloi, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the pleadings of the
Interlocutory Application, has submitted that the judgment under challenge was
passed on 04.11.2019, but the present Revision Petition has been filed on 10.06.2025.
The cause for the delay has been reflected in paragraph 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the
Interlocutory Application, wherein it is stated that the applicant is a poor and
uneducated villager residing in a remote village and is not conversant with legal
procedure.
5. It is stated that the applicant had entrusted the conduct of the Criminal
Appeal No. 02 of 2018 to his engaged counsel. However, he was never informed by his
counsel that the said appeal had been dismissed on 04.11.2019. It is also stated that
it was only on 24.05.2025 when the applicant was arrested on the strength of a Non-
Page No.# 3/4
Bailable Warrant of Arrest issued by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rangia
dated 07.04.2024, that the applicant came to know for the first time that his appeal
had been dismissed and that the conviction and sentence have been confirmed.
6. It is further submitted that upon learning of the dismissal of the appeal and
the issuance of the warrant, the applicant took prompt steps to obtain certified copies
of the relevant orders and to file the present Criminal Revision Petition.
7. It is also submitted that the delay in filing the Revision Petition is neither
deliberate nor malafide but solely attributable to the applicant's ignorance, lack of
education and his misplaced reliance on his counsel.
8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
engaged counsel of the applicant/accused had also returned the fees to the applicant
as he failed to inform his client about the dismissal of the said appeal.
9. The State respondents have filed their objections to the Interlocutory
Application.
10. It is stated that the grounds mentioned in paragraph 6, 7 & 8 of the
application of the applicant are not valid grounds and there is no proper explanation
as to why the applicant had to take about more than 5 and a half years in preferring
the Revision.
11. Ms. S.H Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Non-
Bailable Warrant of Arrest could not have been issued without issuing a Bailable
Warrant of Arrest initially and it is not believable that the applicant could not have
known about the same in all those years.
12. Accordingly, Ms. S.H Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
prayed that the condonation application may be dismissed.
13. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for both
sides and also the pleadings of the parties. The only ground taken by the applicant is
Page No.# 4/4
that his engaged counsel had never informed about the dismissal of the appeal on
04.11.2019. It has also been submitted at the bar that the applicant had contemplated
submitting a complaint to the bar council about the attitude of his engaged counsel.
However, he had not done the same. It is also seen that no other causes or
explanation has been given in the application explaining the huge delay of 1949 days.
It is difficult to believe that in a period of 5 years the applicant had never contacted
his counsel or that he had never enquired about the pendency of the ongoing case.
14. This Court is of the view, therefore, that no sufficient cause has been
shown by the applicant and therefore, the application is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
